Civic Center Margie L. Rice

There is inadequate coordination between local land-use planning agencies and local water supply agencies, resulting in a process that fails to fully engage the issues. (a). Water agencies have tended to avoid interfering with or;participating in growth-management decisions. (b). Cities and the County have tended to not critically evaluate the limitations of the water agencies' supply projections. Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the City of Westminster disagrees wholly with the finding. Water agencies are not land planning agencies by design. Historically and today, water communities have had the responsibility of providing water for the approved land use. Planning being performed at the local, regional and state levels is aimed at using our existing water supplies more efficiently and developing new supplies and systems to accommodate the current and future needs of our residents and businesses and to improve supply reliability where necessary. What sometimes causes a bit of a dilerr~ma is that since the formation of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) in 1928, all entities in southern California have come under the MET water supply umbrella. This prevents us from assigning specific imported water rights to any single entity or property. On a regional basis, when MET has surplus, we all have surplus and when MET is short, we are all short. With water supplies to MET being cut back, as discussed below it can be somewhat difficult to quantify the water supply reliability to a particular area. The linkage of regional and local water supplies within the MET service was strengthened and clarified after the defeat of the "peripheral canal" beginning in the early 1990's with the development of NIET's Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) where it was declared "through the irr~plemelitationo f the IRP, MET and its member agencies will have the full capability to meet full-service demands at the retail level at all times." Through this commitment it was recognized that retail water supply reliability .is dependent on the development and efficient both management of local water resources and imported water sources. A significant responsibility was placed on MET to develop: (1) water management programs that support the development of cost-effective local resources, in conjunction with the local agencies, (2) securing additional irr~porteds upplies as necessary through programs that increase the availability of water delivered through the Colorado River Aqueduct and the state Water Project, (3) providing the infrastructure needed to integrate imported and local sources (treatment, distribution, storage), (4) establishing a comprehensive management plan dealing with periodic surplus and shortage conditions, and (5) developing a rate structure to strengthen NIET's financial capabilities to irr~plementw ater supply programs and make infrastructure improvements. Through the IRP commitment, an equal burden was placed on the local retail agencies to explore and develop local supplies in a systematic manner and use all water resources efficiently while providing financial stability to MET for the development of its system. Collectively this "partnership" was envisioned to,, provide the ability "to meet full-service demands at the retail level at all times." Although the water supply situation has changed drastically since the judicial ruling handed down in 2007, the same framework and goals still apply. The change in the underpinning of our water supplies, as noted by the Grand Jury, is the significant immediate loss of a large portion of supplies from the State Water Project due to enforcement of the Endangered Species Act on a species by species basis starting with the Delta Smelt beginning in 2007. Until that time, the joint regional and local systems were meeting all demands and plans were in place to meet actual and projected demands out to 2035 (our current planning horizon). One observation is that the Grand Jury report references a looming crisis but does not give sufficient credit of the water communities' understanding of the problem or what is being done to resolve the water supply situation: 1. New sources are being developed (conservation, transfers, desalination and recycled water) 2. Water transfers have been secured; more are being investigated; despite cutbacks, the Colorado River Aqueduct will be almost full in 2009. 3. Legal challenges and appeals have been filed on behalf of the water users to resolve some of the cutbacks and to explore what is necessary to resolve issues within our current framework. 4. Appeals have been made to the Governor and the Legislature. The state has initiated environmental review for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The EIRIEIS evaluates the impacts of BDCP, including studies on new conveyance and ecosystem restoration. The Delta Vision Committee has submitted its final implementation report to the Governor with recommended actions on how the California Delta should be managed to fulfill its equal goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration. The plan sets priorities based on the Delta Vision Strategic Plan developed by the Governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. 5. Progress is being made on installation of the two-gate barrier system in Old River and Middle River to provide a barrier to keep the Delta Smelt away from the pumps. When this is constructed, it should result in recouping some of the supplies recently lost. 6. MET is embarking on an update of its IRP which is looking long term at sources for meeting the needs of customers in Southern California, under the changed circumstances (as can best be predicted) out to 2035. Updates for course corrections occur about every five years. 7. At the local level within Orange County, much good work is being accomplished to help mitigate the imported supply losses and to improve supply reliability. Orange County is a leader in water recycling, implementation of water use efficiency efforts and management of the OCWD groundwater basin. The Grand Jury rightly acknowledged OCWD for development of the GWRS Project and Phase 2 of the Project is now under design. In addition, local agencies are continuing development of production wells, well head treatment in areas where needed, brackish water desalting and in Orange County we are currently looking at two potential ocean desalination plants to produce new supplies.

California's looming water supply crisis receives very little, if any, expressed concern from the public in comparison to the numerous other environmental issues presented during development project reviews. (a). Orange County's citizens and interest groups do not appear to grasp the seriousness of the water supply situation or the complexity and urgency of the necessary solutions. (b). Several recent, substantial water supply awareness efforts are underway (e.g. the O.C. Water Summit) that show promise but appear targeted to audiences that are already informed. Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the City of Westminster agrees with the main finding and subset (b) except subset (a). The Grand Jury's report did not mention about a survey of Orange County citizens and interest groups. It's not known if the statement is based on some evidence. Without a survey of the population, it cannot be determined if all or substantial segment of the citizens and interest groups of Orange County appear not to grasp the seriousness of the water supply situation or the complexity and urgency of the necessary solutions. Such a blanket statement cannot be substantiated without some proper survey accordiug to scientific norms. Subset finding (a) could be true or it could be false. If it is determined to be true, than naturally we would agree with the finding. Recorr~mendation 1: Each Orange County municipal planning agency, in cooperation with its respective water supply agency, should prepare for adoption by its city council, a dedicated Water Element to its General Plan in conjunction with a future update, not to exceed June 30, 2010. This document should include detailed implementation measures based on objective-based policies that match realistic projections of the County's future water supplies. These objectives, policies and implementation measures should address imported supply constraints, including catastrophic outages and incorporate the realistic availability and timing of "new" water sources such as desalination, contaminated groundwater reclamation and surface water recycling. (Findings F1 a & b, and F2 a & b) Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(b)(4), the recommendation will not be implemented because each agency that serves water already prepares an Urban Water Management Plan and updates it every five years. In addition, MET prepares an UWMP, its IRP and updates and its Water Supply Outlook periodically. Collectively, these documents provide what has been suggested. For new developnients of greater than 500 units, a Water Supply Assessment must be completed - this is existing law. However, complying with the Grand Jury request for every municipal planning agency would be a duplication of efforts and ineffective in accomplishing the goal of the

LAFCO is the agency charged with facilitation constructive changes in governmental structure to promote efficient delivery of services. To this end, LAFCO is conducting a governance study of MWDOC which is the designated representative for nearly all of the Orange County retail agencies, acting on their behalf with their surface water supplier Metropolitan. (a). There are a number of points of governance disagreement between MWDOC and several of its member qgencies. This is creating an impediment to the on-going effectiveness of these agencies in critical areas of Orange County's water supply management. (b). The current disagreement is a distraction from the greater good of the agencies working toward Orange County's water future. (c) The stakeholders in LAFCO's study failed to meet their March 11, 2009 deadline for LAFCO's public hearing on this matter. Continued delays are unacceptable. Response: The City of Westminster agrees with findings 3(a), (b), and (c).

Orange County is uniquely fortunate to have a vast, high-quality, well managed groundwater basin serving its north-geographical area. However, in its south reaches, it has an equally large, high-growth area with virtually no available groundwater resources. (a). The difference in groundwater availability creates a haves verses have-not situation that is conductive to inherent conflicts. (b). The difference in groundwater availability provides opportunities for responsible participants to develop and construct long-term solutions which will benefit the entire County. Response: The City of Westminster agrees with subset finding (a). The City of Westminster partially disagrees with subset finding (b). Use of storage in the OCWD (OC Water District) basin is allowed by agreement with OCWD. OCWD has entered into storage arrangements that allow MET (Metropolitan Water District 'of Southern California) to store I.I~to 66,000 acre feet of imported water and then to recall as much as 20,000 acre feet from this storage in any one year. This additional yield out of storage benefits everyone in Southern California. An Emergency Services Program Agreement was developed with OCWD that allows emergency water supplies from the basin to be exchanged with South Orange County. This program is currently being used to allow conveyance of water to South Orange County during emergency situations. Allowing access to lower cost groundwater outside of the basin, or allowing access to more storage by South Orange County would increase costs to the basin agencies and put them at risk of water shortage.